House of Eratosthenes

Yesterday, the jury in the Zacarias Moussaoui sentencing phase of the trial reached a verdict: Moussaoui would be given a life sentence. No death penalty. In case you’re wondering who Moussaoui is, he’s the only person to be tried in the attacks of 9/11. He was supposed to have been one of the hijackers…flying a plane into the White House. It didn’t work out and he was arrested instead.

So the jury passed on death. Instead of sending this scumbag to meet Mohammed, he’ll be enjoying the next several decades in prison. Free room and board…all paid for by the taxpayers of the nation he attacked. So why didn’t he get death, as he deserved?

Three of the jurors said he only had limited knowledge of what was going to happen on 9/11. Only “limited” knowledge. What does it take for him to be responsible? Are we supposed to spare his life because he didn’t golf with Mohammed Atta on the weekends? Three other jurors offered as their excuse that Moussaoui only had a minor role in 9/11. A minor role.

OK … full disclosure here. As I’ve said on the air, if I was on that jury I might have a difficult time voting for the death penalty myself. He didn’t participate, he didn’t plan. There’s just the argument that he knew about it. Do we really want to start executing people because they knew a crime was going to be committed, and didn’t tell someone?

Something to think about.

Uh…yeah. Yeah, we do. I don’t see the problem.

Look, I think we can all agree the paramount issue is the possibility of executing a guy who shouldn’t be executed. When we beat that horse to death, though, what we’re really talking about, is a wholly different issue: Deciding legal consequences based on feelings instead of by rational thought. That is the real issue.

Well, the fact of the matter is that a huge chunk among our population consists of people who are self-programmed to decide everything based on feelings instead of thought. A lot of these people, wonderful people as they may be, are simply incapable of pronouncing the more stringent consequence upon a defendant, even if the evidence concretely supports that this is what they should do. They simply can’t do it. The principles of our jury system being left in place to have a consistent influence on ensuing events, the logical thing to happen would be that these people be automatically excused. Of course, that isn’t done. So they serve. And they decide things based on feelings.

Trouble is, while everybody “loses sleep” over convicting a man who may be innocent — nobody loses a wink over letting a guilty guy go. I saw it when I served on a jury. We got a lot of people out there who can review the evidence and the rules of conduct for jurors, and see that every scintilla of material before them leaves them no reasonable option but to convict — and before they cast that vote, they “feel” bad. So they have to change the vote. They can’t explain why. It just doesn’t feel right.

My comments about “12 Angry Men” (1957) sum this problem up, I think.

The question that drives the movie is whether the jurors have properly awarded the defendant the benefit of any reasonable doubt, and as the climax approaches, the attention given to this reaches a fevered pitch. Left behind in the dust, is the equally critical question of whether the defendant is really guilty. There’s a scene early on when Jack Warden, the juror who just wants to get the voting over with so he can watch a ball game, meets Henry Fonda in the washroom. The last two lines in that scene discuss the possibility that the boy may be acquitted, even though he is guilty. Fonda says something to the effect of “that very well may be” or some such, and to my recollection this is the last time this possibility is even considered.

The jury may have released a murderer onto the streets. You can make the argument that with the presence of reasonable doubt, this was their job. I agree. But as Henry Fonda walks down the courthouse steps to resume his everyday life as an architect, would it really then be fitting to have the happy “a wrong has been righted” swelling-orchestra music, as our hero walks proudly among his fellow citizens with his head held high? Doubt or no, conviction or no, this kind of peace-of-mind is not lying in wait for you after your last day on a real jury. There are jurors who want it anyway, and because of that, will not convict anyone. They have seen this movie, and want to be Henry Fonda. I’ve served with them. It’s a pretty serious problem.

There you have it in a nutshell. People think they’re weighing both sides of the issue, but the issue of public safety too often is left, as I said, “in the dust.” Ever since Henry Fonda taught us how to be “disturbed” by the evidence that “proves” a guy’s guilt, everybody wants to be Henry Fonda. Everybody wants to be Juror #8.

Now I’ll grant you, LWOP (life without possibility of parole) is not being released “onto the streets.” In Moussaoui’s case, that’s an important distinction because there really is no substantial reason to think he will ever be on the streets.

But he might as well be, propaganda wise, and what is the War on Terror, to the terrorists, if it is not a propaganda campaign?

Zacarias Moussaoui said “God save Osama bin Laden” as a judge prepared to sentence him to life in prison for conspiring in the Sept. 11 attacks.

“We will come back another day,” Moussaoui said in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, a day after a jury spared him from the death penalty for the worst terrorist attacks in U.S. history.

“God curse America, God save Osama in Laden, you will never get him,” Moussaoui said. “I fight for my beliefs. You think that you own the world and I will prove that you are wrong.”

Moussaoui, and all who sympathize with him, think we’re just a bunch of pansies and our country’s time on this planet is coming to an end. Why in the world shouldn’t they? In all of human history, continuing survival has never been inextricably linked with refusal to punish the guilty. And yet that refusal to punish the guilty, infests America like a thick plague.

So I dunno. I have not reviewed the evidence the way a jury would have, and I have an open mind. But I need to hear something better. I need to hear something that does not begin with the words “do we really want to start executing…” Because speaking for myself, I’m a little surprised by the suggestion we have not started executing co-conspirators just because their fingers weren’t actually on the triggers. I thought we could already do that.

Update: You can review the official jury poll form for yourself, here.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

What Are You Saying Here, Neal?Thursday, May 4th, 2006

What Are You Saying Here, Neal?
Thursday, May 4th, 2006